Man in Scotland arrested over dog's 'Nazi salute'.
Discussion
irocfan said:
ape x said:
Context is everything yes.
A Muslim comic making jokes about dead UK soldiers, would that be OK to you?
Would that get a thread defending it or slathering for the death penalty?
to be fair you do make a valid point - however as distasteful as that might be if we hold true to ideals of freedom of speech....A Muslim comic making jokes about dead UK soldiers, would that be OK to you?
Would that get a thread defending it or slathering for the death penalty?
What I don't agree with is the people who claim they could never be offended by anything at all. That's simply BS.
"resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult"
Who can say they have never ever felt that about something someone has said?
If people were offended by a solider shooting an injured POW.
And people were offended by a solider getting JAILED for shooting an injured POW.
Well both people are 'offended'........ people use 'offended' as a slur, when actually taking offence can simply mean you are sticking up for your morals etc....
Anyway, just spit balling as it is interesting....
ape x said:
Thank you, it was a clumsy point from my side, but I can see from the replies that actually the biggest issue here is the possible prison sentence and the fact this fella has ended up in court at all...so on that point i agree with the people saying that is a step too far and a dangerous step.
What I don't agree with is the people who claim they could never be offended by anything at all. That's simply BS.
"resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult"
Who can say they have never ever felt that about something someone has said?
If people were offended by a solider shooting an injured POW.
And people were offended by a solider getting JAILED for shooting an injured POW.
Well both people are 'offended'........ people use 'offended' as a slur, when actually taking offence can simply mean you are sticking up for your morals etc....
Anyway, just spit balling as it is interesting....
I don't expect to be protected from taking offence by heavy handed authoritarian policing; "So you're, offended, so fWhat I don't agree with is the people who claim they could never be offended by anything at all. That's simply BS.
"resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult"
Who can say they have never ever felt that about something someone has said?
If people were offended by a solider shooting an injured POW.
And people were offended by a solider getting JAILED for shooting an injured POW.
Well both people are 'offended'........ people use 'offended' as a slur, when actually taking offence can simply mean you are sticking up for your morals etc....
Anyway, just spit balling as it is interesting....
king what? Nothing happens..."Edited by Einion Yrth on Friday 23 March 21:12
ape x said:
irocfan said:
ape x said:
Context is everything yes.
A Muslim comic making jokes about dead UK soldiers, would that be OK to you?
Would that get a thread defending it or slathering for the death penalty?
to be fair you do make a valid point - however as distasteful as that might be if we hold true to ideals of freedom of speech....A Muslim comic making jokes about dead UK soldiers, would that be OK to you?
Would that get a thread defending it or slathering for the death penalty?
What I don't agree with is the people who claim they could never be offended by anything at all. That's simply BS.
"resentful or annoyed, typically as a result of a perceived insult"
Who can say they have never ever felt that about something someone has said?
If people were offended by a solider shooting an injured POW.
And people were offended by a solider getting JAILED for shooting an injured POW.
Well both people are 'offended'........ people use 'offended' as a slur, when actually taking offence can simply mean you are sticking up for your morals etc....
Anyway, just spit balling as it is interesting....
It allows the honest responses of "Damned right I would be offended!"
I entirely agree with you; anyone who claims they don't take offence at anything etc. etc. is usually deluding themselves or outright lying.
As is so often the case, Professor Cleese is on the money.
Cornell Visiting Professor, Comedy Legend John Cleese Blasts PC College Campuses
ape x said:
What I don't agree with is the people who claim they could never be offended by anything at all. That's simply BS.
I'd agree with that and I'd also agree that *any* comic making jokes about dead soldiers would, arguably irrationally, not get as much of a defence on PH as this moron... but this is a daft forum not the supreme court and any intelligent person can see the parallel between free speech for those who offend you and those who don't. I think the point is not, that a reasonable person doesn't get offended but that when they do they suck it up because, to repeat a number of people, nothing happens... as a society we seem to be increasingly pandering to people who think the planet stops spinning when they get offended by the slightest thing. I didn't used to think it really mattered but when the hard right and hard left are getting so close to real power again all over Europe it doesn't take much imagination to see laws like this being used against all kinds of 'offensive' dissent.Thorodin said:
The real point is where all this started. Vociferous minorities, occasionally one or two, having a disproportionate effect on everybody else. The manufacture of bandwagons is a growth industry.
I thought it was the police who appealed for someone to come forward to make a formal complaint? Or was it the Jewish leadership bloke who went to the police?My bad, apologies! In 'all this started...' I was referring to the ridiculous climate of gratuitous complaints of being offended and the spread into innocuous corners of general life by people who are desperate for fame/infamy/publicity or, as it is more usually known, something to cling to.
ape x said:
Context is everything yes.
A Muslim comic making jokes about dead UK soldiers, would that be OK to you?
Would that get a thread defending it or slathering for the death penalty?
For me I think the people saying no one should ever be offended would be the first to be offended if the joke was not something they agreed with.
Firstly what has the religion of the comic got to do with anything? Secondly I would say anyone making jokes about dead soldiers would be bad form, should they be arrested for it? No. If I don't like it that's up to me and my personal view, no one else. A Muslim comic making jokes about dead UK soldiers, would that be OK to you?
Would that get a thread defending it or slathering for the death penalty?
For me I think the people saying no one should ever be offended would be the first to be offended if the joke was not something they agreed with.
For me it's not the offence people take but the reaction of the authorities to the offended, you don't like it? Fine don't like it, but sending in the police is farce...
We used to just laugh at people doing/saying stupid things in this country and that was enough but now we must take action! Pretty pathetic really.
Thorodin said:
My bad, apologies! In 'all this started...' I was referring to the ridiculous climate of gratuitous complaints of being offended and the spread into innocuous corners of general life by people who are desperate for fame/infamy/publicity or, as it is more usually known, something to cling to.
I agree completely. Something very strange seems to be going on with this case. It looks like it was set up with the aim of setting a precedent by way of conviction (though that is a bit tinfoil hat). It will be interesting to see what happens going forward, and hopefully clearer details on how this whole thing happened.
i'm deeply offended every time that clown Salmond opens his mouth, can someone arrest him please?
offensive yes, bad taste, most definitely. funny? depends on your perspective. but in no way should it be a matter for the police and courts to be getting involved with.
people should have the right to be an ahole if they wish to, we might not like it but he should be free to say and do as he pleases, plenty of others far more offensive are
offensive yes, bad taste, most definitely. funny? depends on your perspective. but in no way should it be a matter for the police and courts to be getting involved with.
people should have the right to be an a
hole if they wish to, we might not like it but he should be free to say and do as he pleases, plenty of others far more offensive areWills2 said:
Firstly what has the religion of the comic got to do with anything? Secondly I would say anyone making jokes about dead soldiers would be bad form, should they be arrested for it? No. If I don't like it that's up to me and my personal view, no one else.
For me it's not the offence people take but the reaction of the authorities to the offended, you don't like it? Fine don't like it, but sending in the police is farce...
We used to just laugh at people doing/saying stupid things in this country and that was enough but now we must take action! Pretty pathetic really.
actually Count Dankula has a video on just this.For me it's not the offence people take but the reaction of the authorities to the offended, you don't like it? Fine don't like it, but sending in the police is farce...
We used to just laugh at people doing/saying stupid things in this country and that was enough but now we must take action! Pretty pathetic really.
Police Scotland HAVE to take action if the offended has THE PERCEPTION, that what has transpired is offensive.
So it's not what was said BUT what was perceived .
DO YOU SEE THE DANGER?
Is there in fact a common purpose to all this?
. . .
Kccv23highliftcam said:
actually Count Dankula has a video on just this.
Police Scotland HAVE to take action if the offended has THE PERCEPTION, that what has transpired is offensive.
So it's not what was said BUT what was perceived .
DO YOU SEE THE DANGER?
Is there in fact a common purpose to all this?
. . .
I perceive your use of capital letters to be offensive. Police Scotland HAVE to take action if the offended has THE PERCEPTION, that what has transpired is offensive.
So it's not what was said BUT what was perceived .
DO YOU SEE THE DANGER?
Is there in fact a common purpose to all this?
. . .
I’m going to report you to Police Scotland.
Kccv23highliftcam said:
actually Count Dankula has a video on just this.
Police Scotland HAVE to take action if the offended has THE PERCEPTION, that what has transpired is offensive.
So it's not what was said BUT what was perceived .
DO YOU SEE THE DANGER?
Is there in fact a common purpose to all this?. . .
that's effing dangerous! Mind you on the credit side could we now have salmond and wee kranky arrested since I, the offended, have the perception that their rhetoric is offensive?Police Scotland HAVE to take action if the offended has THE PERCEPTION, that what has transpired is offensive.
So it's not what was said BUT what was perceived .
DO YOU SEE THE DANGER?
Is there in fact a common purpose to all this?. . .
I see a lot of people saying "can I get whoever arrested because they offended me?"
The answer which I think we all know is no. They will use this power selectively in a way they want to. Its quite clear the law was meant to be a authoritarian tool for the justice system to control society as they wish.
If you did go to the police with a complaint I have no doubt if it didn't fit with what they want. They will just tell you to do one or just bullst you saying they will look into it.
But this is the usual shortsighted stupidity of these people. They have the arrogance to think that it's only ever going to be them who have this power.
Its like the new proposals for protecting political candidates from abuse and intimidation. One of the proposal's is that candidates will no longer need to publish their address. Which I just thought that going to grate for the likes of Tommy Robinson.
They just don't think about the long term affect of these policies because they are complete and utter morons.
The answer which I think we all know is no. They will use this power selectively in a way they want to. Its quite clear the law was meant to be a authoritarian tool for the justice system to control society as they wish.
If you did go to the police with a complaint I have no doubt if it didn't fit with what they want. They will just tell you to do one or just bulls
t you saying they will look into it. But this is the usual shortsighted stupidity of these people. They have the arrogance to think that it's only ever going to be them who have this power.
Its like the new proposals for protecting political candidates from abuse and intimidation. One of the proposal's is that candidates will no longer need to publish their address. Which I just thought that going to grate for the likes of Tommy Robinson.
They just don't think about the long term affect of these policies because they are complete and utter morons.
Order66 said:
Donbot said:
Something very strange seems to be going on with this case. It looks like it was set up with the aim of setting a precedent by way of conviction (though that is a bit tinfoil hat).
Not tinfoil hat at all - it was an obvious show trial. I can foresee many appeals.As I have said, It reads like a Stalin show trial.
It does not matter if they have used the Article 58 show trials as a template, or if they are simply too poorly educated and ignorant to know of them (and it is much more likely to be the latter).
The people pushing this are dangerous.
Not-The-Messiah said:
I see a lot of people saying "can I get whoever arrested because they offended me?"
The answer which I think we all know is no. They will use this power selectively in a way they want to. Its quite clear the law was meant to be a authoritarian tool for the justice system to control society as they wish.
If you did go to the police with a complaint I have no doubt if it didn't fit with what they want. They will just tell you to do one or just bullst you saying they will look into it.
But this is the usual shortsighted stupidity of these people. They have the arrogance to think that it's only ever going to be them who have this power.
Its like the new proposals for protecting political candidates from abuse and intimidation. One of the proposal's is that candidates will no longer need to publish their address. Which I just thought that going to grate for the likes of Tommy Robinson.
They just don't think about the long term affect of these policies because they are complete and utter morons.
Again, the nail firmly struck on the head.The answer which I think we all know is no. They will use this power selectively in a way they want to. Its quite clear the law was meant to be a authoritarian tool for the justice system to control society as they wish.
If you did go to the police with a complaint I have no doubt if it didn't fit with what they want. They will just tell you to do one or just bulls
t you saying they will look into it. But this is the usual shortsighted stupidity of these people. They have the arrogance to think that it's only ever going to be them who have this power.
Its like the new proposals for protecting political candidates from abuse and intimidation. One of the proposal's is that candidates will no longer need to publish their address. Which I just thought that going to grate for the likes of Tommy Robinson.
They just don't think about the long term affect of these policies because they are complete and utter morons.
What makes people go along with and support this kind of thing?
The answers are not simple.
Mostly fear, ignorance and lack of foresight. Fear of being offended, and ignorance of the long term consequences of this kind of rational in law making.
But there will be the believers. The true believers.
From an earlier post;
Telegraph said:
Detective Inspector David Cockburn of Lanarkshire CID said: “This clip was shared online and has been viewed almost one million times.
“I would ask anyone who has had the misfortune to have viewed it to think about the pain and hurt the narrative has caused a minority of people in our community.
“The clip is deeply offensive and no reasonable person can possibly find the content acceptable in today’s society.
“This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.”
Our Mr. Cockburn reveals himself as a true believer, revelling in his new powers to subdue anyone who will not comply.“I would ask anyone who has had the misfortune to have viewed it to think about the pain and hurt the narrative has caused a minority of people in our community.
“The clip is deeply offensive and no reasonable person can possibly find the content acceptable in today’s society.
“This arrest should serve as a warning to anyone posting such material online, or in any other capacity, that such views will not be tolerated.”
It is likely that there will be many like him.
Angry little people filled with animosity and resentment towards a world isn't as it 'should' be. They will wreak their vengeance on anyone they feel is having a negative effect on their Utopian vision.
With every success they will widen their definition of 'offensive' and cast their nets wider. Woe to anyone who will not bow to their righteous justice.
There will be some who go along because they are opportunists. They see the chance to make a name for themselves. To signal their virtue to the world by rooting out the evil amongst us. They may care least of all for the consequences of their complicity.
There will be others that go along because they are also frightened.
Frightened of what could / will happen to them if they dare to speak out. If they dare to air their dissent publicly. If they dare to question the 'groupthink'.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff